Crows 'tamper' affair

[Jay]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/crows-braced-for-worst-over-tippett-20121023-283gv.html

THE AFL has two great pillars of equality. One is the salary cap, the other is the draft system.
Get caught chipping away at either and you could be in big trouble.
Adelaide has persistently denied there was a clause in Kurt Tippett's last contract, signed at the end of 2009 when Gold Coast was hovering, to trade him cheaply to the club of his choice when the deal expired.
Advertisement
That much seems true. But it is for coming to such an understanding outside of the 24-year-old's official paperwork that has landed the club in much, much hotter water.
It is to Adelaide's credit that it went to the AFL late last week with written confirmation that it had promised to get Tippett to where he wanted to go if it was unable to convince him to stay in Adelaide beyond 2012.
The Tippett camp has a copy of that note, too. While no club was stipulated, the Crows had believed that if the Queenslander went anywhere, he would go to one of his home clubs. He chose Sydney instead.
This is different to, say, Koby Stevens nominating the Western Bulldogs as his club of choice after leaving West Coast. Those clubs must now work a fair deal. Tippett's price was apparently decided, agreed upon and - most tellingly - not disclosed to the AFL, three years ago.
The Crows knew that trading their star forward for Sydney's second-round pick would never have been approved by the AFL, where watchdog Ken Wood must sign off on each trade deal. Eyebrows around the league were raised even at speculation last week that the club was considering swapping Tippett for the premier's first-round pick, No. 23, and fringe forward Jesse White.
But as both Melbourne in 1999 and Carlton in 2002 found out, after fessing up to salary-cap breaches, coming clean might earn you a softer penalty but you won't be completely spared.
The Blues, serial offenders, were almost destroyed by the punishment handed to them: stripped of picks one and two (Brendon Goddard and Daniel Wells) in the 2002 draft, they were also disqualified from the 2003 pre-season draft, the first two rounds of the 2003 national draft and fined a total of $930,000. It took them years to recover.
The Adelaide/Tippett situation is, clearly, different to that faced by those clubs. But the AFL won't like that it came to a secret agreement, independent to Tippett's official contract. The league won't like that the Crows have effectively thumbed their nose at the AFL's rules.
There are potential ramifications for Tippett, too, whose role in this deal will now become heavily scrutinised. At worst, he could be deregistered if he is found to have subverted the rules. At best, his path to Sydney might just have become a whole lot tougher.
More crucially, the league will now be asking many more questions of Adelaide. What else, if anything, had it agreed to do for Tippett, to get him to re-sign three years ago? What has or had it agreed to do for other players? Losing Tippett could be the least of its problems.

Thoughts?

[Antsey]

Just read this!  No idea how this will play out - has anything like this been done before?

[kilbluff1985]

wow that's interesting will be very funny if he gets deregistered maybe the Crows are so annoyed with him they are willing to get him in trouble even if it means they do also

[Chopps]

I don't see where the issue lies, it's not in the contract lodged with the afl and the crows hardly stand to benefit from it.  what's the difference between taking a round 2 pick and getting tippet to his club of choice which all traded players ask a preference or let him walk for nothing.

[kilbluff1985]

in a way they were bribing him to stay a bit longer by giving him the choice of clubs and an easier trade deal

[Antsey]

I noted a comment on the Age article:  "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."

If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.

[Chopps]

What no they weren't. They offered more money and said look mate if you wanna leave go for it but if you stay take this cash and if you still wanna go next time we ll help you out. A bribe is handing money under the table.

[Chopps]

I noted a comment on the Age article:  "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."

If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.

Why should the crows be penalised?

[Ricochet]

wow just heard this on the radio this morning, this could be huge

[Antsey]

I noted a comment on the Age article:  "Give the Crows / Swans and Tippett a penalty almost as severe as the penalty that the Magpies and Tarrant got when Tarrant entered the draft and stated publicly that if any team other than Collingwood picked him he would retire immediately."

If the club and player get penalised what a terrible result and an even sorrier saga this will become.

Why should the crows be penalised?

Messing with the workings of the draft I guess?  At least they didn't go through with actually agreeing to a second round pick based on the agreement and sought clarification with the AFL

[tbagrocks]

Someone was bored after two and a half weeks of trading so they decidedto stir the pot by writing this story? And everyone always believes what the media have to say ::)

[valkorum]

My understanding is that all agreements regarding players must be lodged with the AFL/AFLPA (ie Judd's Visy deal etc). This hasnt been lodged with the AFL previously so therefore they are in breach of the rules.

This was a big thing that the AFLPA brought in (when Demetriou was in charge of the AFLPA) so you would think that the Crows are going to be punished for this.

[Capper]

This could blow up several different ways.

Tippett may not be able to play footy next year but still be on the books of the Crows, which would cause salary cap issues at the Crows or the Swans may have to pay for him.

Crows could lose picks...as well

[Chopps]

Clubs in principle generally do best for the player and club regardless how would that change if it was written in a contract or not. This is how I understand this "gentlemen agreement" is. Having said that if it wasn't there the crows wouldn't just let him walk to the draft if they could get something even a 2nd rounder

Valkorum please enlighten me as I don't think I get it.

[valkorum]

Valkorum please enlighten me as I don't think I get it.

This agreement is considered a "side arrangement" as it is seperate to the playing contract.  It's the same in principle to any other side arrangement (Judd's Visy contract is a side arrangement) and must be lodged with the AFL/AFLPA for sign off.

This deal (trade for 2nd round pick to club of choice) obviously hasnt been lodged with the AFL/AFLPA.  IMO this is now considered a breach of rules and needs to be addressed as such.  It could be considered draft tampering.